CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4C7EB0D1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s919B3D13 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sE8E6EE1D { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:11pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 63390/14 Yuriy Nikolayevich GUSEV and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   February 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2   September 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning their access to a court, namely the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (second cassation instance), was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who have submitted their observations in reply. On 23 July 2021 the Registry sent by registered post a letter to the applicants requesting further information concerning the communicated complaints. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The letter returned to the Court because it could not be delivered. On 8 November and 10 December 2021 the same letter has been sent to the applicants by email to the addresses that they had indicated to the Court. No response has been followed. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 February 2022.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President Annex List of the applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Yuriy Nikolayevich GUSEV 1942 Russian Anapa 2. Nikolay Trofimovich KLIMOV 1952 Russian Anapa 3. Vladimir Fedorovich MUZYCHENKO 1943 Russian Anapa 4. Vladimir Alekseyevich YAROVOY-SIMONENKO 1947 Russian Krasnodar